| Message ID | 1471033484-2709-1-git-send-email-dave.long@linaro.org |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Commit | 7a9011db32b5a24f29e725220d0ba9e970412f47 |
| Headers | show |
On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 16:24:44 -0400 David Long <dave.long@linaro.org> wrote: > Some architectures (i.e.: sparc64 and arm64) make reasonable partial stack > duplication for jprobes problematic. Document this. Applied to the docs tree, thanks. jon
On 08/15/2016 10:25 AM, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 16:24:44 -0400 > David Long <dave.long@linaro.org> wrote: > >> Some architectures (i.e.: sparc64 and arm64) make reasonable partial stack >> duplication for jprobes problematic. Document this. > > Applied to the docs tree, thanks. > > jon > Was kind of hoping to see an ack (or critique) from a sparc maintainer. Thanks, -dl
On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 10:49:36 -0400 David Long <dave.long@linaro.org> wrote: > On 08/15/2016 10:25 AM, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > > On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 16:24:44 -0400 > > David Long <dave.long@linaro.org> wrote: > > > >> Some architectures (i.e.: sparc64 and arm64) make reasonable partial stack > >> duplication for jprobes problematic. Document this. > > > > Applied to the docs tree, thanks. > > > > jon > > > > Was kind of hoping to see an ack (or critique) from a sparc maintainer. So are you saying you don't want the patch applied at this point? jon
On 08/15/2016 11:32 AM, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 10:49:36 -0400 > David Long <dave.long@linaro.org> wrote: > >> On 08/15/2016 10:25 AM, Jonathan Corbet wrote: >>> On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 16:24:44 -0400 >>> David Long <dave.long@linaro.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Some architectures (i.e.: sparc64 and arm64) make reasonable partial stack >>>> duplication for jprobes problematic. Document this. >>> >>> Applied to the docs tree, thanks. >>> >>> jon >>> >> >> Was kind of hoping to see an ack (or critique) from a sparc maintainer. > > So are you saying you don't want the patch applied at this point? > > jon > I think we can apply it. It's not looking like we're going to get comments from a sparc/kprobes maintainer. The need for this change was first addressed on the sparc email alias exactly one week ago, which is maybe long enough to wait. Sorry for the trouble, -dl
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 09:32:43AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 10:49:36 -0400 > David Long <dave.long@linaro.org> wrote: > > > On 08/15/2016 10:25 AM, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > > > On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 16:24:44 -0400 > > > David Long <dave.long@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > >> Some architectures (i.e.: sparc64 and arm64) make reasonable partial stack > > >> duplication for jprobes problematic. Document this. > > > > > > Applied to the docs tree, thanks. > > > > > > jon > > > > Was kind of hoping to see an ack (or critique) from a sparc maintainer. > > So are you saying you don't want the patch applied at this point? To avoid any doubt, for arm64: Acked-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> (and I want the patch applied)
diff --git a/Documentation/kprobes.txt b/Documentation/kprobes.txt index 1f9b3e2..1f6d45a 100644 --- a/Documentation/kprobes.txt +++ b/Documentation/kprobes.txt @@ -103,6 +103,16 @@ Note that the probed function's args may be passed on the stack or in registers. The jprobe will work in either case, so long as the handler's prototype matches that of the probed function. +Note that in some architectures (e.g.: arm64 and sparc64) the stack +copy is not done, as the actual location of stacked parameters may be +outside of a reasonable MAX_STACK_SIZE value and because that location +cannot be determined by the jprobes code. In this case the jprobes +user must be careful to make certain the calling signature of the +function does not cause parameters to be passed on the stack (e.g.: +more than eight function arguments, an argument of more than sixteen +bytes, or more than 64 bytes of argument data, depending on +architecture). + 1.3 Return Probes 1.3.1 How Does a Return Probe Work?